3 ms·

The Patrick Henry quote seems pretty clear to me. He says every man, not every militia man so I'm inclined to believe the direct quote unless you have evidence

The Patrick Henry quote seems pretty clear to me. He says every man, not every militia man so I'm inclined to believe the direct quote unless you have evidence to the contrary. Also, He is speaking against congress limiting it. The following two paragraphs in that citation are talking about how men in government can't be trusted to keep their word not to infringe / create tyranny. > And even here the caveat "peaceable" is thrown in, which is a loophole big enough to throw a whole busload of bans through. While "peaceable" isn't defined in stone here, I would take it to mean a person who hasn't been convicted of violent crimes or has intent to commit such crimes. That wouldn't really open the floodgates to bans other than ones we already have for criminals / people making threats. It could possibly justify red flag laws though. > If courts rules that it was illegal to restrict the ownership or bearing of arms in any way I don't think that would happen and it wouldn't be what they wanted back then either. Several other quotes mention peaceful men bearing arms which I think would keep the no felons can buy guns laws.

andrewla 7y ago
> The Patrick Henry quote seems pretty clear to me. He says every man, not every militia man I provided a link to the original source. He is arguing about who is responsible for arming the militia -- congress or the states, or whether citizens in the militia are responsible for bringing their own armaments. The important thing, he notes, is that every man have a firearm, whether by his own provenance or the state's or congress's provisioning. Directly quoting, he says, in light of the organization of the militia being subject to both federal and state oversight, as to whether the members of the militia should be required to arm themselves: > So that our militia shall have two sets of arms, double sets of regimentals, etc., and thus at a very great cost we shall be doubly armed --- The great object is that every man be armed --- But can the people afford to pay for double sets of arms, etc.? Every one who is able may have a gun. Read the link and I dare you to offer an interpretation that explains why, during the discussion of arming the militia he engages in a total non sequitur of mentioning that all people should have guns?
andrewla 7y ago
Peaceable is certainly not set in stone, and you're welcome to your interpretation, but a reasonable alternate interpretation is that you have to comply with the idea that owning certain armaments is de facto non-peaceable. It would be very easy to revisit Heller in this light and say that gun violence is a problem in DC, and thus owning a handgun is a non-peaceable act in itself.
- jki275 7y ago
  There's no support for that viewpoint anywhere in the text of the 2nd amendment, nor is there in Heller.
  - andrewla 7y ago
    In this case we are living in the alternate reality where Samuel Adams's proposal was adopted into the text of the consitution. I'm arguing that his phrasing would allow for more restrictive gun laws than the current 2nd amendment. So using his quote to defend a less restrictive gun policy seems counterproductive.
- tomschlick 7y ago
  I disagree. The violent actions of others don't make your action of exercising the right to protect yourself inherently violent.

andrewla 7y ago

> The Patrick Henry quote seems pretty clear to me. He says every man, not every militia man I provided a link to the original source. He is arguing about who is responsible for arming the militia -- congress or the states, or whether citizens in the militia are responsible for bringing their own armaments. The important thing, he notes, is that every man have a firearm, whether by his own provenance or the state's or congress's provisioning. Directly quoting, he says, in light of the organization of the militia being subject to both federal and state oversight, as to whether the members of the militia should be required to arm themselves: > So that our militia shall have two sets of arms, double sets of regimentals, etc., and thus at a very great cost we shall be doubly armed --- The great object is that every man be armed --- But can the people afford to pay for double sets of arms, etc.? Every one who is able may have a gun. Read the link and I dare you to offer an interpretation that explains why, during the discussion of arming the militia he engages in a total non sequitur of mentioning that all people should have guns?

andrewla 7y ago

Peaceable is certainly not set in stone, and you're welcome to your interpretation, but a reasonable alternate interpretation is that you have to comply with the idea that owning certain armaments is de facto non-peaceable. It would be very easy to revisit Heller in this light and say that gun violence is a problem in DC, and thus owning a handgun is a non-peaceable act in itself.

jki275 7y ago
There's no support for that viewpoint anywhere in the text of the 2nd amendment, nor is there in Heller.
- andrewla 7y ago
  In this case we are living in the alternate reality where Samuel Adams's proposal was adopted into the text of the consitution. I'm arguing that his phrasing would allow for more restrictive gun laws than the current 2nd amendment. So using his quote to defend a less restrictive gun policy seems counterproductive.
tomschlick 7y ago
I disagree. The violent actions of others don't make your action of exercising the right to protect yourself inherently violent.